Clarification update at bottom.
Via Marie at RH.com, I read the Myers article in the Lowell Sun regarding a little tiff between the state Senate Democratic primary candidates. The basic premise as it is outlined, is that “Doherty sent a letter to Donoghue yesterday challenging her to join him in not using any of her own money to finance her campaign.”
His claim is that “It signals that public office is nothing more than a trophy for the well-to-do. It also undermines the people’s confidence in our democratic process, by suggesting that the only people than can run for office competitively are millionaires who can self-finance their campaigns.”
First off, let’s belay a moment and examine the logic here for a second. I’ll be honest, self-funded campaigns aren’t my ideal. I’d rather clean elections were fully funded, but that’s another story. Heavily self-funded campaigns (and we can’t assume Donoghue’s is, yet) can be vanity campaigns, and worse, scare away opponents with less deep pockets. Setting aside the crack at millionaires which I’m not 100% Donoghue is (or if true, how much of one she is), though, I’d far, far rather see a candidate get their money from their own bank account than to get the money from tainted sources, like corporations. Or, maybe, from Good Ol’ Boys.
Because as someone who frequents downtown, it didn’t escape my notice that the windows of that badly misused badly developed historic building at the end of Market St at Central, the one owned by failed City Council candidate and GOB friend Bob Brian McMahon, are plastered with Chris Doherty signs. This isn’t the first indicator I’ve seen of exactly who is backing Doherty’s campaign.
Look, Chris Doherty seems like a nice guy, though I’ve really only met him a few times and in mostly crowded rooms. Though I have to believe he understands the basics of politics in Lowell and fully groks who he’s hanging out with, he’s been nothing but courteous and polite. However, I cannot ignore the history and context of Lowell’s contentious past, and who in this town is dead set against Eileen Donoghue for her role in ousting a past City Manager. Doherty’s motivations aren’t necessarily suspect; but his friends’ certainly are.
So we come to the next part (and a clever response by Donoghue if we’re talking horse races). She responded to Doherty’s letter that:
…by state law, the candidates are not required to file reports with the Office of Campaign Finance until Sept. 7, one week before the Sept. 14 primary, which she calls “troubling and not in the spirit of transparency.”
[…]
In her letter, Donoghue suggests that both candidates post their detailed monthly contribution reports on their campaign websites.
“The voters should know what parties, and what interests they represent, are giving you such large amounts,” Donoghue wrote…
If what I suspect is true, that list of Doherty’s donors will be drowning in a sea of names that would not be accepted by this blogger, at the least. If there’s a faction battle in this race (and there’s evidence, but not definitive proof, that there is), the battle lines are old, the resentment festering, and the parties involved will not be able to escape that context. The only thing stopping the true examination of such a battle would be the fact that the OCPF reports come too late to properly examine where the money is coming from (which is supposed to be the whole purpose of the OCPF reports. Sigh).
So, will sunshine prevail? I hope that Donoghue posts her donor lists monthly on the web, regardless of Doherty’s response. To be completely honest and objective (and yes, I like Donoghue, but I can appreciate the horse race too), this letter from Doherty reads like a political ploy, and a little amateurish at that. Instead of making me think, it makes me wonder who’s giving him this advice.
And generally, going (in effect) negative this early in the campaign is the tactic of the possibly-desperate. Make no mistake, Doherty’s letter is a negative attack, as the undertone basically says, “you were an elitist in your last race, will you be one now too?” It makes him look like he’s trying to grab headlines, and allowed Donoghue to respond to the attack with a smooth parry that appears far more seasoned, and lets her get in a possible campaign issue (more transparency in elections) to boot.
It also gave me the opening to post this complaint about the GOB connection that I’ve been meaning to do for a week now.
Word to the wise…if you’re going on the attack, you better be sure of the consequences. Nine times out of ten, attacks backfire. Ask Kerry Healey about that one.
Clarification and Update:
Mea culpa, I hadn’t known that McMahon had sold the condos on the first floor. Doherty is weirdly renting that space (from whom I would like to know…is that truncated, wasted storefront condo association property, or does someone else own it?). From the email sent to me by McMahon’s wife:
Hi Lynne-
My husband Brian sold both of those Market St. condos some time ago. Chris Doherty is renting space from the new owner. To be perfectly honest, I’m not a fan of the appearance of the front windows, but that is entirely out of our control. The condos are beautiful inside, I’d be happy to show them to you. Maybe it will give you a clearer perspective of the overall project.
However, in the final analysis, this whole post is NOT invalid. The signs in that window were merely the most recent in a string of indications as to who is giving their backing to Doherty, and not the sole proof. If it had been the sole proof, I would not have posted this post in the first place. This post and its background are still completely perfectly valid, and though I withdraw (for now - still want to know who that “rent” goes to) the sign commentary, I still have the same exact questions.
One final note - though McMahon’s wife was extremely polite and kudos to her for that, I honestly don’t care how beautiful those condos are. They don’t belong in prime retail first floor space. It was bad design, and it should never have passed the Planning Board at the time. There were a lot of special exceptions for that development as I recall. This of course was back when the GOB ran the boards so it passed without effort, but it was wrong, and a perfectly great retail space which could have been the key transition from Market/Merrimack to the less frequented Central St frontage, was ruined.
As to this - “I’m not a fan of the appearance of the front windows, but that is entirely out of our control” - well, it was in their control, and the developer decided to truncate the retail frontage to uselessness so he could make a bigger profit (garnering all sorts of those favorable zoning exceptions), which is now, basically, permanent. So what else is there to do with that space other than pretty it up with a few curtains and paint the wall which is 6 feet back from the window, or rent it out for ungainly political signs? It’s not like anyone has to see in or out of those windows now due to the poor planning and development.
